FORMAL HUMANITY SEPARATISM


freeburma

A SIMPLIFIED FORMAL ESSAY ON
HUMANITY SEPARATISM

AND ITS THEORETICAL RELATION TO
DESTRUCTION OF HEGEMONY
WITH REGARDS TO JUNTA RULE
AND GLOBAL INEQUITABLE DIGI-CAPITALISM

By Venna Kyi—Former Exile of Myanmar

1 – The Origin Point and Deadlock of Efforts

I write in English here only for the sake of utility, that the theories held herein may find the proper audiences and activists, and not as a symbol of any personal preference or bias, other than the current biased world configuration. In recognition of my nation’s seminal leaders, I have taken up the name “Kyi” to at once formally criticize the continued usefulness of old symbols (Aung San, Aung San Suu Kyi), as well as to mobilize their residual power. Oppression has taken many forms in Myanmar: Britain; Japan; the Military Junta; United States; Burmans and the Bama-Exclusive Government, but in light of recent obfuscating liberalizations in policy and the sentiment of disengagement that inevitably follows in its wake, there grows the need for a single over-arching strategy for personal emancipation. We will term this strategy Humanity Separatism.

To all global citizen-members, this shall be our most fundamental presumption of our understanding of reality, that: All improvements in materials and technologies throughout all history have been characterized by two aspects of usefulness, first that they have been useful to benefit the very few, and second that they are successfully used to subject and torture the very many. While technological advancements are touted as progress markers of humanity in the First World, they are in fact used contradictorily to keep poor citizens of this planet stagnated in a time bubble. The growing technological capabilities of the developed world institutionalize Third World nations as resource farms populated by Disposable Units of slave labor. In First World territories, technological capabilities are captured and extracted from developing nations, and are used to institutionalize the poor’s continuously-more-profound exclusion from a new aristocracy, along with supranational financial regulating entities (IMF, WTO, World Bank, etc.), forsaking them to Disposable Units of allowed consumption. While this basic principle holds true throughout most of civilization, it has become exacerbated by the runaway, mutant system of Digital-Capitalism, and the personal philosophies of greed and over-consumption that are directly traceable to it. There are no means whereby to overthrow either Digitalism or Capitalism, nor especially its new hybrid form, despite many highfalutin theories and armed revolutions. All those who fight it die in vainglory. There is only one endpoint to the standing hegemony of the world, namely, Conclusion.

2 – Inundation and Collapse

In a broad personal sense, there are only two basic categorical political philosophies regardless of specificity or overlap, these being liberal-reactionary and oldworld-traditional. Liberal-reactionaries adhere to these general characteristics: moderation, inclusion, secularism, wide learnedness, regulation, diplomacy. On the other side of the coin, oldworld-traditionals adhere to these characteristics: possession, exclusion, religion, narrow specialized expertise, deregulation, war. Arguments here of over-generalization have no place, for let it be implicitly understood that most individuals incorporate characteristics of both sides into themselves, also notwithstanding hypocrites, mind-changers, opportunists, and so on.
The characteristics of liberal-reactionism arise in opposition or refutation of specific aspects of Digi-Capitalism deemed excessive. Liberal-reactionary tactics, while correct in diagnosing the symptoms that make up the disease of Digi-Capitalism, are counter-intuitive when applied as cures. In fact, in practice these tactics tend to sustain and add shelf life to the hegemony, aggravating the separate symptoms they seek to lessen, and the overall strength of the disease is redoubled. Instead, the task is to become brink-liberals, a type of temporary neoliberalism that absorbs, and adheres to, the characteristics of oldworld-traditionalism as a type of concrete satire. Such a reversal will transmute the values of persons with oldworld-traditional worldviews into those of a person with a liberal-reactionary worldview. This will bring about the inundation and collapse of Digi-Capitalism according to this model, the model of humanity separatism.
The formula is this: the Digi-Capitalist system’s primary embedded impetus is in-and-of-itself its own undoing, i.e., the attainment of the system’s purest goal is also its own self-destruct button. The primary impetus is popularly—and falsely—believed to be Consumption, and is targeted widely as the fundamental enemy, but it is not the actual primary impetus. Rather, the principle of Consumption rests upon a very specific foundational psychological aberration, and that aberration, in practice, is the primary impulse and reinforcement of the act of Consumption. It is Disposability. Proof of the measured, purposeful institution of this aberration can be found in the stated economic intentions of J. Gordon Lippincott, one of the founding fathers of U.S. postindustrial thought and implementation:

Our willingness to part with something before it is completely worn out is a phenomenon noticeable in no other society in history…It is soundly based on our economy of abundance. It must be further nurtured even though it runs contrary to one of the oldest inbred laws of humanity, the law of thrift. (1947)

Disposability is a distortion of human thought grown to awesome proportions under the current hegemony. This distortion, in its most literal version, applies to materials, but in its more profound form applies to living matter (humans, animals), and conscience (devoid media, entertainment devices). Disposability, operating under the umbrella of Digi-Capitalism, is the single equalizing factor amongst all things, living or inanimate. Disposability has become encoded into the texture of our lives to such a degree that individual meals are taken from single-use containers and utensils, mass materials are packaged and segmented in ever-smaller amounts, usable items are replaced out of sheer vanity, and it goes much deeper than this. Notable for their disposability are electronic devices (humanity swims in the outcast waste of disposed-of devices), the highest form of self-reflexive Disposability. Over time the aberration of Disposability grows within us, and advanced forms of this psychosis eventuates in the inanimate becoming the living and the living becoming the inanimate.

The reflex action of the liberal-reactionary person is to moderate Disposability, but this only enlarges and sustains Disposability. The proper action is to accelerate it.

Only by becoming an augmented version of, or perfect version of, Digi-Capitalism’s stated intentions can a liberal reactionary person destroy, or even just merely curb, the system. Thus, instead of disposing of a plastic bowl after every meal, dispose of a ceramic one. Instead of disposing of a plastic spoon after every meal, dispose of a metal one. The true version of brink-liberalism will augment the principle of Disposability to engulf all that is technically reusable. Electronic devices must be programmatically disposed of as each successively new version is released for consumption. Recycling must be abolished. Waste depositories will once again become the most essential and vulnerable organs of the earth: oceans, rivers, forests, etc. Attentions must be disposed of, too, in order for brink-liberalism to flourish. The individual must fervently and rigorously engage themselves in virtual realities (video games, internet frivolities, socnets), escapist fictions (inane television, pleasure-principle movies, pornography, rote books), consumptive softwares (apps, device-delight, quality upgrades)… For every urination, there must be two or three flushes. For every piece of clothing washed, it must be washed twice. For every cleaning product used, the entire container must be emptied. All automatic power-reliant products must remain consistently on. All potable water should be imbibed from tiny plastic bottles. Towels used to dry hands should be immediately tossed in the rubbish bin. Every piece of clothing purchased should be purchased in multiple colors. All faucets must be left running at all times, and so on in this manner of satirical excess in all things until the Earth is pushed to the brink of exhaustion, for there are only two proven methods for affecting true change in world systems (minus wars), either the brinksmanship of catastrophe, or the direct endangerment of the powerful, i.e., rich.
What will occur upon this change in behavior of liberal-reactionaries is that oldworld-traditionalists will embrace one or all of four given routes.

1. They will vociferously and thoroughly petition brink-liberals (by any means, up to and including violence) to regress their values to their previous arrangement of moderation, in which case the corollary consequence will be that oldworld-traditionalists will adopt the values of moderation as their own.

2. They will find nothing wrong with this augmentation of Disposability, and continue on in their classic pattern of beliefs.

3. They will agree to abandon, as well as radically restructure and recodify, the institutionalized aspects of Disposability, consumption, Digitalism and Capitalism to suit a new non-distorted and more equitable world hegemony (though still imperfect).

4. A military force, or forces, of uncertain alignment will intervene to forcibly adjust the catastrophic trends of über-Disposability. If the force is aligned with continued Digi-Capitalism, it will be unable to effectively regulate the patterns of over-consumption it originally sought to end, and will either continue with the status quo, or will restructure and recodify.

Whether one or all four of these routes are taken, and in no particular order, Digi-Capitalism will be inundated, and subsequently will collapse under its own weight. It is precisely the deadlock of Digi-Capitalism that now necessitates these radical persuasional and fatalistic techniques. The deadlock has come in the form of not only subterfuge of our collective psychological edifice, but also in the form of direct financial and military power prepared to extinguish those who threaten merely to modify it. Be warned that once the destruction of the natural world becomes noticeably accelerated, the very real threat of military retaliation will loom sun-like into view.

3 – The Disclaimer of Willpower

While the premise of the action of humanity separatism is simple in theory, the accompanying emotional mathematics will not be once put into practice. For current liberal-reactionary individuals the act of essentially “destroying the world to save it” will be nearly unbearable, and will be characterized by immense inner pain. Despite the strategy’s appearing risky, it is in fact the unavoidable conclusion of our reality, no matter what. If no action is taken to accelerate the exhaustion of the Earth, Digi-Capitalism will continue on unchecked into perpetuity, or until the natural world can no longer bear its burden and will force widespread change. Because of Digi-Capitalism’s virulent, malign, and inherent ability for mutation and absorption, the only workable manner of its permanent modification or destruction will be the conclusion of its efforts, for it is only at this endpoint that even the wealthy will no longer benefit from it. Proof of this is self-evident, and need not be explained in this particular document.

The toll that humanity separatism will take on us shall be incalculable, but attempt to avoid ultimate discouragement. This is the only viable method for wiping out the aberration of Disposability from our procedures and psyches that, if allowed to remain, will spell out our own extermination.

4 – Purposes and Inclinations of the Individual Within, and Extraneous of, Humanity Separatism

With the knowledge that politics is not a purpose in and of itself, there must be a framework of personal meaning within the strategy of humanity separatism. This framework consists of the role of the individual, his-her general desires, as well as fluctuations in focus and intent. This fourth section represents the complex human underpinnings of humanity separatism as an applicable strategy, while everything preceding it can be taken as de facto, concretely, true, and thus this section is not to be read as strategy, but as philosophy—also as speculation, albeit careful speculation, that is in no way meant to be interpreted as universally true. These speculations appear here for the purposes of possible guidance, as well as proof of the consideration of the severity and intricacy of what humanity separatism proposes.

Inclination will occur before purpose. The first inclination that will be sparked within the individual (from here on out represented by the symbol Ø) after reading this formal essay of humanity separatism will be outright denial of its claims, though Ø will be irreversibly intrigued by its implications. Ø will put the idea of humanity separatism aside for a considerable period of time, but as evidence of its truth amounts and the deeply ethical dissatisfaction of Digi-Capitalism once again sets in, there will be a return to it. Despite a renewed enthusiasm for its theoretical notions, Ø will remain in denial of its practical application. It is at this point that there will be three separate schisms of inclination, all three interrelated, and therefore likely to spontaneously occur in any order according to situational factors.

The first schism will involve Ø regressing back into nature. Unable to accept and integrate the immutability of the world into their being, Ø will flee the world of deeply human construct (cities, towns) in order to insulate his-herself against the dark truth of reality. Because this schism is that of a skeptical person, it can also be considered as the path of regressing back into inactive study. Content to simply enjoy this insulation and subsist in such a selfishly spiritual manner, Ø will either: carry on with this path indefinitely, contributing as before to Digi-Capitalism’s exhaustion of the Earth; carry on with this path for a limited time before returning and reintegrating to the arena-proper of Digi-Capitalism; carry on with this path for a limited time before returning to humanity separatism as an applicable strategy.

The second schism will involve Ø’s personal distaste for the notion of “destroying the world to save it.” This will seem an immediate and gross miscalculation of activism, an undeniable revolutionary excess, and an essential sin against the pursuit for equitable happiness, well-being, and materialism for all. The effect of this abhorrence will be that Ø will call into question the entire ethical dimension of radicalism, i.e., the disruption of the status quo. Looking around, Ø will see the current reality of the status quo as seemingly the “lesser of two evils” when compared with the all-or-nothing strategy of humanity separatism, and in response will begin to willingly, without guilt, participate in the standing mores and trends of Digi-Capitalism. From here, Ø will either stagnate in this path or progress to one of the other two schisms.

The third schism will involve only the minor adherence to the principles of this strategy. Ø, believing in the legitimacy of humanity separatism, will be unable, constitutionally, to follow through with the acts and magnitude of Disposability necessary to render the strategy effective. Instead, Ø will participate in the Disposability practices of Digi-Capitalism, but in a manner normal to the status quo, despite the fact that Ø is doing so with a very different intent than the more blinkered individual. From here it is very possible for Ø to regress to the previous, traditional liberal-reactionary worldview, and all the behaviors contingent thereof. Otherwise, Ø will progress to one of the other two schisms, or embrace humanity separatism to its full extent.

After these first three, most basic, schisms of Ø, the possibilities of psychological pathways become far too convoluted to be listed in this simplified document, but the ultimate point is that the inclinations of Ø will be varied and inconsistent. Truth, while hanging unavoidable in the foreground, will most often give way to indirect thinking, outright denial, or half-hearted followthrough. The challenge implicit in humanity separatism is not only to face the exceptional traumas of seemingly abandoning your own principles, as well as the destruction of the things you hold dear, but also to retain the primary goal of the strategy within yourself and be ready to rescind all radical habits once it has been accomplished. In short, inclinations will often wane between the radicalism of humanity separatism, the status quo of Digi-Capitalism, and the false purity of traditional liberal-reactionism.

4a – Psychological Positioning, and the Question of Humanity

We hold a privileged position in classical history in that we are able, if we so choose, to hover above it. Nearly the entire catalog of history can be accounted for and accessed in multiple recorded formats. History, although constantly fluctuating in perspective and tone, does yield many constants about human behaviors and the long- and short-term consequences of those behaviors. In addition, many supplemental sciences and discoveries have emerged—equally accessible—that supplement our understanding of history. Much has been made of how those who currently live, especially those in the context of globalized Digi-Capitalism, should be able to associate, or not associate, with events that transpired long before they were ever born. Some theories urge us to break all ties with history, or to revise it as we see fit, or that we are no longer a part of history. While all these theories remain useful in creating a discourse, none can be enacted by a single individual working without organization, or without a mass identification with a severance from history, and this reveals a larger point.
Such independent mass identifications (a term encompassing protests, revolutions, ideologies, philosophies, and essentially all things considered as “mass movements” with the exception of Digi-Capitalism and nation-statism) have been rendered ineffective and unfeasible by both the individualistic nature of hegemonic Digi-Capitalism and the previous inherent abuses of non-individualist hegemonies, most notable among them being communism. Humanity separatism, in practice, is a strict form of anti-revolution that requires no organization (which is precisely what makes it an incurable antibody to Digi-Capitalism: the free will of individual consumption and Disposability is its own paramount permissible act), and therefore assumes that individuals must be able to compose their own independent systems of meaning. Meaning to a humanity separatist is by no means enforceable or procedural: to once again make myself clear, this section refers merely to hypothetically similar-thinking individuals and their projected puzzle pathways of reasoning, or it might serve as a springboard for those who have difficulty orienting their personal inner lives within a system whose goal is external and political, but there is no prescriptive notion of personal thinking encoded into humanity separatism.

History cannot be, nor should not be, formally exterminated, but nor should it necessarily be viewed as an implication of the present, especially not as an implication of personal action or societal constraint. Although this statement borders on the commonsensical, it warrants being committed to paper because of its specific caveats. There have been many attempts to separate ourselves from history in order to wash our hands of all the crimes of the human spirit, and to free us from that terrible inheritance—tradition—which perpetuates hatred within us for one another, but history, just like humanity, should not be Disposed of. What the subject requires, in the case of both history and humanity, is a more profound measure: separation without forsaking. To believe history is a fully misleading entity is wrong. No one is more likely to separate themselves from the damaging constraints of history than the individual who is significantly educated in as much of it as possible. The most important separations, though by no means required, will be those that undo traditional oppositions (oppositions being interchangeable with obligations)—viz. racial tensions, family construction, religion vs. secularism, environmentalism vs. development, and etc. Fluidities such as these, once grasped in terms of their historical developments, will be flung to the outreaches of consciousness, greatly facilitating the further (non-)struggle of the undoing of another intractable historical obligation, Digi-Capitalism.
Keep in mind that no matter the state one’s inner reality takes, it is a disastrous presumption to consider the reality surrounding you as also “changed.” External reality will always adhere to historical conventions, and therefore can only be changed through means sprung from the impetus of history, thus the strategy of enhanced Disposability as a means of destroying Disposability itself in all its concrete and abstract forms. Once this point is reached, the external reality of history can be more definitively altered, but in the meantime there will be the need to emancipate ourselves from context (even if imperfectly) to carry out this grim work, and never before have we had the ammunition to truly accomplish this. Our ammunition will be the digital realm, whose powers for pacification of action and anxiety know no equal, and so a separatist is encouraged to delve without restraint into its numbing waters. By hijacking the very method that keeps us obfuscated, we will dull the sensations of our burden without organization, further accelerate Disposability, and more deeply infiltrate the foundations that the system will be uprooted by. It is widely said that nothing fails like success; this will be especially true in the case of Digi-Capitalism’s self-referential demise, and in the process humanity becomes not a question mark but an ellipses. In other words, another step of evolution, not forced, but naturally attained.

5 – Conclusion and Anger

The final topic of this simplified essay must address the perception of the idea of “destruction” or “apocalypse” (sans its religious connotation). For those who currently suffer, the fear of destruction does not hold as it does in the person who does not suffer. In fact, for those who suffer, destruction may be synonymic with construction. This cannot be proven empirically to one who does not suffer, but is no less true for it. This document does not seek to sway, nor does it seek agreement from anyone: it simply stands as a contextually true statement that cannot be disproved—only through ignorance is it disproved. It arises from free will and—without doubt—a large, terrible, justified anger that has now been distilled of all irrationality. The inevitability of what Humanity Separatism proposes, i.e. the radical destruction of the natural world through Disposability, can be glimpsed through the lens of the simple, inarguable wisdom of this statement borrowed from Terence McKenna: “The apocalypse is not something which is coming. The apocalypse has arrived in major portions of the planet and it’s only because we live within a bubble of incredible privilege and social insulation that we still have the luxury of anticipating the apocalypse.” There is nothing to save. There is only the barest possibility, and hope, of a viable future to salvage.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s